On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Róman Joost <rjoost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:25:47AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
> > Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want"
defaults (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be able to run
tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the reason for giving the
default container lots of power is so people can start their *own* locked down containers
if they want them. If people want the harness container to be more configurable,
they're gonna have to be *real* persuasive in order to successfully argue that
starting a second container doesn't make more sense :)
> Hi All,
> I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several
> years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a
> roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.
I don't specifically know the contents of that conversation. Perhaps Dan
can give me a hint if I'm on a wrong track here.
Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are
not in Restraint to achieve parity?
Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
> Kind Regards,
> Róman Joost
> Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
> Red Hat
> Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org